"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| Indeed, under English law, it is likely that this could happen even
if
| the owner/occupier attempts to authorise you retrospectively, as
there is
| a general principle that retrospective actions cannot cancel criminal
| charges. That would have to be clarified in the High Court or above.
|
| Hopefully, no-one would seek to waste the High Court's time over such a
| matter. It would probably be reasonable to assume, in the circumstances
| described, that the agent had the authorised person's consent, implicit
or
| explicit, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. ...

No, you have missed the point. Twice.

The danger with such laws that rely on reasonable people not
enforcing them is that it gives arbitrary scope for bullying by
authority. If you ever read the newspapers, you will see almost
daily evidence of such abuse.

Perhaps so, but in the example you quoted, unless the onus of proof were
reversed, it seems unlikely that any malicious jack-in-office would have
sufficient evidence to have a realistic chance of a conviction.


If such a case came to court, it would be the High Court that would
overturn the conviction - if the person concerned did not take it that
far, his conviction would stand. And he would have to pay for that,
and be classed as a criminal until then.

In the extremely unlikely event he would be prosecuted/convicted in the
first place. If/when challenged over his actions, he responds, my actions
were authorised by the 'authorised person'. The 'authorised person' confirms
that was the case. No prosecution ensues, and if it does, the accused is
surely aquitted.


Remember that magistrates are not allowed to use the justification of
"de minimis non curat lex" to quash charges - judges are, though recent
changes mean that even they can be overruled. And that even a case
before the magistrates resulting in acquital is stress and expense,
and damaging to someone's reputation.

It's also embarassing and dangerous to reputation of jacks in office to be
seen to bring malicious prosecutions.


| Perhaps so he can trick him into being prosecuted and convicted and
subject
| to instant dismissal? A cunning stunt :-)

Well, yes, but I am thinking of the more likely scenario of a person
not grovelling appropriately to the Men From The Ministry or the police
and being prosecuted out of malice. That happens regrettably often with
our current "catch all" laws.


It may well happen, but I doubt it would in the circumstances you described,
because AFAIK, there is no requirement for the 'authorised person' to
authorise people to act on his behalf in writing or in public. Hence a
copper bottomed defence (prior verbal authorisation) is almost certainly
available, and prosecution would therefore seem very unlikely.

Jack in office would probably find a different charge with which to torment
his opponenet, e.g. cruelty in not disposing of chicks in nest in an
appropriately humane manner, or taking eggs with the intention to trade in
them.